Dismissed

State of Karnataka, v. Basavanneppa

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2018CRL.RP/100264/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the State sought enhancement of the sentence imposed on aged accused for cheating and forgery. The High Court of Karnataka found no ground for interference as lower courts considered the accused's age, economic background, and delay in charge sheet filing, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed. The interim application I.A. No.1 of 2017 was also dismissed as it did not survive the dismissal of the main petition.

State of Karnataka, Vs Basavanneppa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100264 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD. THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDITIONAL SPP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

BASAVANNEPPA MALLESHAPPA TOPALGATTI, AGE: 79 YEARS, R/O: GAMBHYAPUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

SOMAPPA YALLAPPA BENGERI, AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O: GAMBHYAPUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

SIDDAPPA BANGARAPPA SULLAD, AGE: 65 YEARS, R/O: GAMBHYAPUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

MAHADEVAPPA MUDUKAPPA HUNIKAL,

¶16

¶17

AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O: GAMBHYAPUR, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

1. SMT. PARVATEVVA KALLAPPA BEELAGI, AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O: ULLIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶19

1. SMT. GANGAVVA SHIVALINGAPPA HEBBALLI, AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O: ULLIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶20

1. SMT.NEELAVVA MAHADEVAPPA BHADRASHETTI, AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O: ULLIGERI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶21

1. PUNDALIKK DANAPPA TUPPAD, AGE: 71 YEARS, R/O: DODDAWAD, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶22

1. SMT. PARVATEVVA HANUMANTAPPA GURIKAR, AGE 75 YEARS, R/O UDAY NAGAR, TQ: KELGERI ROAD, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, AND TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE TRIAL COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.135 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AND IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.183 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DHARWAD, AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF IMPOSITION OF LESSER SENTENCE TO THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED WITH MAXIMUM SENTENCE AS PRESCRIBED FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES

¶24

¶25

THAT IS SECTIONS 420, 465, 471, 511 AND 468 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The State is in revision challenging the orders passed by the Principal JMFC, Dharwad, in C.C. No.183 of 2006 dated 30.09.2015 and the judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 01.06.2016.

¶29

I have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State.

¶30

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-respondents and several other accused persons, without their involvement in the Quit India Movement in the year 1942-43 and without they entering into the jail, applied for pension available to the freedom fighters with an intention to grab the public money by creating false and fabricated documents and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 and

¶31

¶32

511 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶33

The material on record would disclose that,

¶34

charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 173. The respondents herein, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 8 to 11 and 14, appeared before the trial Court. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and at that stage, an application under Section 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed and the accused pleaded guilty praying to exercise judicial discretion by imposing minimum sentence. The trial Court after assigning reasons, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 471, 420, 511 read with Section 149 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day i.e. till raising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days in respect of each of the aforesaid offences.

¶35

¶36

Aggrieved by the imposition of inadequate

¶37

sentence, the State preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. On re-appreciation of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the said appeal and enhanced the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court to Rs.2,000/- each for each of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 471, 420 and 511 of the IPC.

¶38

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the punishment prescribed for the charged offences are ‘up to seven years and fine’. He would contend that the offences committed by the accused are serious in nature and therefore the sentence now passed against the accused persons is very meager and the same is liable to be enhanced. He further contended that there is no sentence passed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC and accordingly, he seeks to modify the order passed on sentence, thereby seeking enhancement of sentence passed against the accused-respondents.

¶39

¶40

I have gone through the material on record

¶41

and also the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. It is seen that a case was registered against the accused on 17.05.2002 and the charge sheet was filed after 5½ years. The accused are all aged persons and they have been appearing in the case before the Courts below right from the initiation of the proceedings. It is also seen that initially charge sheet was filed against 173 persons and among them, few of the accused are dead. It is also observed by the Courts below that the accused persons are between the age group of 80-100 years. Considering the age of the accused persons, their economical background and all other mitigating and extenuating circumstances, sentence was imposed by the trial Court which was later modified by the appellate Court.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the findings recorded and the sentence passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶43

¶44

The revision petition is dismissed.

¶45

In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, I.A.1

¶46

of 2017 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Kgk & kmv

State of Karnataka, v. Basavanneppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka, v. Basavanneppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumar S/O Duragappa Bijawaad Vs Deputy Police Commissioner and

Sri. B.K. Parameshwara Reddy Vs C. Manohar S/O Chellappan Panicker

Shri.Kalloli Maruti Kalasannavar Vs the Sate of Karnataka

Shankar S/O Venkobarao Kshathri, Vs the State

State of Karnataka Vs Mahalingappa S/O Amrut Marennavar

Shri. Ravishankar Hirojappa Kalal Vs Smt. Manjula D/O Basapa Shidnal @ Madhu